Contents

Proposal

However, in reality, people are using platforms from different directions, and the platforms have one or more exits where other ways connect.

So, to reflect the real world better, platforms should be marked as such.

So this proposal is to add a new tag "railway=platform" to ways to mark them as a train platform. The proposal is to allow to use both "way" and "area", as in most cases, platforms are rather way-like (and have only a limited width, so it's hard and lots of effort to be forced to use areas, but in case the way is closed, the whole area is marked as platform (useful for larger stations).

If there are more then one platform in one location, a relation could be used to "bind" them together.

Comments

Add comments here.

i think this would probably fit well with relations. there are a lot of parts to a station that need tagging separately, but are still part of a whole: ticket offices, waiting rooms, platforms, over bridges, passenger tunnels, luggage lockers, bike lockers, entrance from the road/pavement, etc.Myfanwy 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this shouldn't be limited to railways. Big bus stations have many platforms too. --Jttt 08:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Outlining the plaforms would improve navigability even without all the other bits of a railway (or bus) station. It can be very hard with our current rendering to get any idea of the extent of a station, whether a large city terminus or small suburban stop, or where to enter it. MikeCollinson 13:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed from area to way or area, as most platforms are usually quite narrow, but in larger stations, we still need area (aba, 2008-09-04)

I’d expect this feature to be usable by pedestrians (also for transit if applicable) unless stated otherwise (i.e. tagged with foot=no). Do others share this opinion? --Tordanik 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How does one go from a platform to a train without being allowed to step on the platform? --Sargas 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess the point was, that in some region platform are also used as some sort of footway without using a train. If you need a platform ticket to then we should use something like access or maut or or or ... Aikon 06:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That should be tagged with access=public or access=yes for passengers and access=permissiveaccess=private for staff --Zottel 18:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In Germany, rail-platforms (subway etc.) are private area. So it should be access=permissive and access=private, since you need a ticket to access it.--TobWen 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just doing some editing around a railway station earlier and thought to myself, we should be able to map platforms, so I'm all for supporting the suggestion, but I must ask how we shall name platforms. For open ways (e.g. straight line) it would be simple, but it is more complicated for areas (closed ways) --Lakeyboy 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it more complicated for areas? It only gets complicated if you "draw" all platfroms with a single area. But if each platform is a single area then there are no problems. They all could have names and refs and whatever else you want to add to them. --Ckruetze 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the names and refs can be put on just the portions of the platform to which they apply. So for an island platform such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clapham_Common_Tube_Station_Platforms_-_Oct_2007.jpg the left side would be tagged with name=Northbound and ref=1, and the right side with name=Southbound and ref=2. Presumably you would either create one way for the left side of the platform and another way for the right side; or you would split the platform into two areas along its length. --Benc 20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was referring to island platforms. What Benc suggested with "split the platform into two areas along its length" would be most appropriate. Problem resolved! --Lakeyboy 05:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this idea of tagging platforms, this is really needed. The current solution with only a dot is much too less. But where should railway=station (railway=halt ...) be placed within all this platforms in the future?--Lesi 12:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A relation could be used to bring all parts and peaces of a station together. Aikon 14:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm working for a public transport network, "platform" and "mast" (the sign of the flag_stop) are two different, but connected things. The platform is an area and it can contain more than one mast/flag_stop. Perhaps we can do this by references.--TobWen 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer something like sign= , this would be more universal. But that should be covered then in a separate proposal. Aikon 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. I support the idea but I think this shouldn't be limited to rail. I would prefer something like platform=yes. Jttt 17:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You could use highway=platform for bus station, there are too many *=yes tags. Smsm1 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And how should I tag platform for both tram and bus? I just don't see a point in having two tags for the same thing. Jttt 18:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be really better to use only highway=platform independent of the kind of transportation. The transport to which it belongs can be deduced by the mentioned relation. But it should only be used for real platforms which are clearly separated from the other ways, not for simple small bus or tram stops. This for example is not a platform, it's only a footway and a tram_stop. Lesi 19:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You should use highway=platform in this case, because it will be a street! Dieterdreist 11:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it can also be waterway=platform for offshore oil and gas platforms and such. platform=yes is extremely inaccurate as the term platform have so many meanings. If platform=* is to be used, than the value should not be yes/no or true/false, but identify the type of platform, for instance rail/highway/tram/offshore. --Skippern 18:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)